North Korea (Superthread)

[jmt18325]

Global Research?  Really?

 

[Rifleman62]

I wonder when Canadians and the Liberal government are going to wake up to this threat?

 

[jmt18325]

I wonder when Canadians and the Liberal government are going to wake up to this threat?

What is it that the government and Canadians should be doing, exactly?  I kind of feel at this point that we've been sold a blustery bill of goods by the Trump administration.  Maybe there's a larger plan?  We'll have to wait and see.

 

[QV]

What is it that the government and Canadians should be doing, exactly? ....

2% GDP defence spending would be a good start.  But since that is not the case Canada can't do anything except quietly piss and moan from the sidelines. 

 

[Rifleman62]

jmt18325:

What is it that the government and Canadians should be doing, exactly?

Well jmt18325, this is NOT a good start. The PM is an embarrassment. Certainly not Churchillian by any measure.

Loachman's post Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #473 on: April 13, 2017, 23:54:52 »

Bombard's Body Language: Justin Trudeau On North Korea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvG1uzfwHbk

She's done a couple of assessments of PM Selfie's appearances before, and I've posted the links. I find them accurate and painfully humorous

 

[The Bread Guy]

Perhaps the USN doesnt want the North Koreans to know exactly where the Vinson is. I suspect its all part of the psyops campaign. Chinese troops are arrayed on the border or maybe not. Keep the bad guys guessing.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/trumps-rage-for-war-making-three-us-aircraft-carrier-strike-groups-deployed-to-korean-peninsula-waters/5585685

Agree with your premise in orange 100%, but you can do better than this as a source, no?

... this is NOT a good start. The PM is an embarrassment. Certainly not Churchillian by any measure ...

"I know what he SHOULDN'T be doing" isn't exactly the same as offering up options on what he SHOULD be doing - other than "waking up to this threat".  #AdHominem

2% GDP defence spending would be a good start. 

Then what?

Meanwhile ...

• "‘The sword stands ready’: On aircraft carrier deck, Pence reiterates U.S. pledge to defend Japan"
• "North Korea drops nuclear bomb on US in disturbing propaganda video"

 

[MarkOttawa]

Pretty confident the Chinese, Russians (and quite a few others) had through various intelligence sources and methods a very good idea of the USS Carl Vinson's position and track--and likely both would have let Norks know it was nowhere near the peninsula in order to reduce risks.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Letter of mine sent to the Globe and Mail April 16 and not published:

The story "Amid fear of war, Trump has military targets in North Korea, but also risks" (April 15 [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/amid-fear-of-war-trump-has-military-targets-in-north-korea-but-also-risks/article34712698/ ]) states that the U.S. has sent "...an aircraft carrier group toward the Korean peninsula that Mr. Trump called an 'armada' supplemented by nuclear-equipped submarines ["nuclear-equipped" was later deleted in online version]."  But President Trump did not mention submarines with nuclear weapons; he simply called the vessels "very powerful". 

US Navy carrier strike groups are in fact normally escorted by one or two attack submarines (SSNs, nuclear-powered but not carrying nuclear weapons--those are now carried just by ballistic missile subs, SSBNs).  The Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles deployed on the attack subs have not had a nuclear role for several years and their warheads are now only conventional.
   
There is no need for your story to stoke further fears about a dangerous situation by adding an unwarranted nuclear weapons angle.
   
References:
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/03/21/0200000000AEN20170321009551315.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/21/868545/-
   
http:/www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united-states-submarine-capabilities/

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/tomahawk/
"The Tomahawk is an intermediate range, subsonic cruise missile that is launched from U.S. Navy ships and submarines. It provides a long-range, deep strike capability. The Tomahawk can carry either conventional or nuclear payloads, though policy decisions have phased out their nuclear role..."

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/03/tomahawk/
"Although the U.S. Navy has yet to make a formal announcement that the nuclear Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM/N) has been retired, a new updated navy instruction shows that the weapon is gone...[2013]"

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Useful Mark.

You probably could have mentioned the USS OHIO SSGN 726 and her three sisters, each with 154 Tomahawks (3x the Syrian strike in each one)

http://www.csp.navy.mil/ohio/About/

And the rest of the Pacific Submarine Fleet

http://www.csp.navy.mil/subpac-commands/

 

[Journeyman]

There is no need for your story to stoke further fears about a dangerous situation by adding an unwarranted nuclear weapons angle.

Well, it's pretty obvious why it wasn't published....you....you fact user!

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook:

;D #Fakenews everywhere!

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Awww, C'mon Mark!  If you can't trust the Gummint who can you trust?

 

[jmt18325]

Well jmt18325, this is NOT a good start. The PM is an embarrassment.

That is an assessment that certainly isn't universally shared.  I don't really care what she thinks about his body language.

So I ask again - what is it that Canada and Canadians should be doing, other than looking scary to appease someone who reads body language?

 

[Kirkhill]

That is an assessment that certainly isn't universally shared.  I don't really care what she thinks about his body language.

So I ask again - what is it that Canada and Canadians should be doing, other than looking scary to appease someone who reads body language?

Supplying more ships at sea to police the sea lanes to free up USN assets for confrontations with the likes of Syria and North Korea.  (Confrontation, like judgmental and discriminating is not a bad word).
Providing more Logistics capability, prepositioned afloat, airborne and on shore to be able to respond effectively to crises, humanitarian or military.
Providing more air/anti-air capability to provide cover for less wealthy friends in situations of greater risk than ourselves.
Providing more ISR capabilities for situational awareness at home and abroad.
Provide more combat capability to provide protection for any and all of the above deployed abroad.

In short, being a rich country that benefits from a secure world, putting some of that money towards the maintenance of that secure world.  The standard premium is 2.7% of GDP (minimum).

 

[MilEME09]

Supplying more ships at sea to police the sea lanes to free up USN assets for confrontations with the likes of Syria and North Korea.  (Confrontation, like judgmental and discriminating is not a bad word).
Providing more Logistics capability, prepositioned afloat, airborne and on shore to be able to respond effectively to crises, humanitarian or military.
Providing more air/anti-air capability to provide cover for less wealthy friends in situations of greater risk than ourselves.
Providing more ISR capabilities for situational awareness at home and abroad.
Provide more combat capability to provide protection for any and all of the above deployed abroad.

In short, being a rich country that benefits from a secure world, putting some of that money towards the maintenance of that secure world.  The standard premium is 2.7% of GDP (minimum).

Example here, Send a Squadron of Hornets to Okinawa, freeing up American pilots and air craft to be used in any confrontation with North Korea, Naval assets can take over American patrols in the Pacific. Plenty we can do as a military to support the US military, Given Chinese financial assets in Canada, we could probably also put pressure on China as well to do something about NK.

 

[QV]

I doubt Canada could send a full squadron anywhere without severely impacting operations within our own country.  (I could be wrong here but...not by much I bet).  We can't really contribute a whole helluva lot in our current state.  So anything meaningful will need to begin with a huge increase in the defence budget and rebuilding and reshaping the CAF (including a c2 rethink) to meet Canada's needs now and in to the future.  My sense is tha CAF is currently struggling to stay afloat.  Until then Canada can meekly complain from the sidelines or at best be a resource base for US/UK and the rest of NATO.

 

[Kirkhill]

I doubt Canada could send a full squadron anywhere without severely impacting operations within our own country.  (I could be wrong here but...not by much I bet).  We can't really contribute a whole helluva lot in our current state.  So anything meaningful will need to begin with a huge increase in the defence budget and rebuilding and reshaping the CAF (including a c2 rethink) to meet Canada's needs now and in to the future.  My sense is tha CAF is currently struggling to stay afloat.  Until then Canada can meekly complain from the sidelines or at best be a resource base for US/UK and the rest of NATO.

QV, I agree.  My point is that there is a rationale for upping our "intervention budget" from the 1.1% currently (0.9% on defence and 0.2% on aid) to 2.7%.  The rationale is sound on moral grounds (see above) and more importantly it is contracted for (unless we assume that "agreements" are understood the same way that Bill Clinton understands "sex").

 

[QV]

Chris we are pitching from the same mound.  I agree on all your points.  I was referring to MilEME09 where he said "plenty we can do as a military..." - I took that to mean in our present state. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Chris we are pitching from the same mound.  I agree on all your points.  I was referring to MilEME09 where he said "plenty we can do as a military..." - I took that to mean in our present state.

Seen QV.  Sorry.

 

[Rifleman62]

Chris Pook:

Supplying more ships at sea to police the sea lanes to free up USN assets for confrontations with the likes of Syria and North Korea.  (Confrontation, like judgmental and discriminating is not a bad word).
    Providing more Logistics capability, prepositioned afloat, airborne and on shore to be able to respond effectively to crises, humanitarian or military.
    Providing more air/anti-air capability to provide cover for less wealthy friends in situations of greater risk than ourselves.
    Providing more ISR capabilities for situational awareness at home and abroad.
    Provide more combat capability to provide protection for any and all of the above deployed abroad.

    In short, being a rich country that benefits from a secure world, putting some of that money towards the maintenance of that secure world.  The standard premium is 2.7% of GDP (minimum).


MilEME09: Example here, Send a Squadron of Hornets to Okinawa, freeing up American pilots and air craft to be used in any confrontation with North Korea, Naval assets can take over American patrols in the Pacific. Plenty we can do as a military to support the US military, Given Chinese financial assets in Canada, we could probably also put pressure on China as well to do something about NK

But we are a mooch. Instead of doing our share of NORAD/NATO or doing more as above to assist our largest trading partner, number one defence partner, we would rather mooch and squeal.